No good deed goes unpunished. In granting residents of Scotland a referendum on their country’s political future, David Cameron surely thought he was doing a good deed. The Scottish National Party would have to put up or shut up. A Yes vote would be a victory for them. A No vote would be a victory for the Scottish Labour Party bigwigs to whom Mr Cameron entrusted the campaign against independence, in the belief that he – despite being the son of a Scotsman – was less qualified than they to make the case for the Union.

If Mr Cameron gave a thought to his own self-interest, it can only have been a fleeting one. Before he became prime minister, I once suggested to him that a referendum on Scottish independence might be a Machiavellian masterstroke. If it went the wrong way, I suggested, playing devil’s advocate, might not the Tories rule for ever more in the remaining UK?

We can argue that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are more prosperous then they were in the Soviet Union. We can argue that both the Czech Republic and Slovakia have fared better since they split in a "velvet divorce". We can argue that countries as Croatia and Slovenia have reached a far higher standard of living since they broke away from Yugoslavia. In general I am no supporter of separatism but it is hard to find any nation which has fared worser since they split away, leaving some obvious exceptions like Serbia (the backbone state of former Yugoslavia). The argument of Scotland will impoverish without Britain has -so far- not found evidence in other examples in Europe.

The difference being that all these countries formerly were under communist dictatorship. While Scotland is not.
Of course, since the Scots have an ocean full of oil it is unlikely that they will get poorer in the short run. Especially since the populist of the Scotish party has to hand out 'presents' to his voters, as all these populist nutters promise. Still, more fragmentation in Europe is the last thing we need.

That's what astound me. Considering that there is no going back, wouldn't such a narrow acceptable margin be more politically divisive among the Scots, regardless of the outcome?
That would mean, again in theory, that if a majority of the voters in say Glasgow voted no, and the national result of the referendum was yes by say 52%, then people of Glasgow would have a good case for seceeding from Scotland and remaining in the rest of UK, wouldn't they?

Thank you for bringing this issue up Muhler, because it is something that worries me a great deal. I do not believe that democracy is properly served when voting results mean that ALMOST half the population are not in favour of whatever has been voted in. What about the 49.5% of the remaining population? It is a significant proportion whose voice will have been heard but ignored.
I would have gone beyond a 66% and insisted on 75% then we can be sure that whatever the result is will have properly been the will of the people.
We'll know soon enough, but I can't see how anyone will be able to celebrate whatever the result is if it's such a close end.

Cameron gave the SNP every concession it wanted, from the date of the referendum to the age of voting (16). Not only does the rest of the United Kingdom not have a say but it takes only 50 percent +1 of Scots to break up the union.

While I find the age of voting a bit odd (do 16 year olds get to vote in everything or just this referendum?), the 50%+1 vote makes sense to me.

If they said that the result had to be 66%, and it came in at 53%, then clearly the majority of Scots are in favour of separation but are at that point literally being forced to stay in the union because their majority isn't big enough. Yes, it would suck for the very sizeable minority if the result comes down that close, but it's still respecting what most people in Scotland want.

Requiring the Yeses to have a 66% vote doesn't respect what the majority of Scotland wants. It's basically saying "unless you can get an overwhelming majority of Scots to vote for this we're going to ignore the results if they don't favour us". In that case, if the results come in at 53% for yes and 47% for no, the Nos have won the vote without actually winning it.

I wonder how the Queen is? Will she stay up? Will she find out ahead of the general public? (Mmm? need to see if I can find the answer to the last question). Will she speak to the nation or just quietly come back to BP this week end

Probably a night for 2 gin/dubonnet, rather than the usual one!

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

Well, I can see what you're saying, Ish. But the Nos would be winning nothing as nothing would change in the country and status quo would remain. Nonetheless, it still bugs me what the 49.5% are supposed to do - the workings of democracy has its failings too!

While I find the age of voting a bit odd (do 16 year olds get to vote in everything or just this referendum?), the 50%+1 vote makes sense to me.

If they said that the result had to be 66%, and it came in at 53%, then clearly the majority of Scots are in favour of separation but are at that point literally being forced to stay in the union because their majority isn't big enough. Yes, it would suck for the very sizeable minority if the result comes down that close, but it's still respecting what most people in Scotland want.

Requiring the Yeses to have a 66% vote doesn't respect what the majority of Scotland wants. It's basically saying "unless you can get an overwhelming majority of Scots to vote for this we're going to ignore the results if they don't favour us". In that case, if the results come in at 53% for yes and 47% for no, the Nos have won the vote without actually winning it.

Well of that the case then The UK will most likely wake up tomorrow still a United Kingdom as if the yes did win i cant see them winning that much percentage of votes. Will be many happy voters on the no side but no doubt there will be some very angry peoples.

I just hope this doesn't turn ugly no matter what happen meaning no civil wars, riots, etc. i would ate to see that happen

I wonder how the Queen is? Will she stay up? Will she find out ahead of the general public? (Mmm? need to see if I can find the answer to the last question). Will she speak to the nation or just quietly come back to BP this week end

Probably a night for 2 gin/dubonnet, rather than the usual one!

Well, I suspect as a woman of habit, she will go about her evening/night time routine as usual, but may be woken during the night if anything of note can be gleaned from the results.
As much as I would like it, I cannot imagine that she would speak to the nation whatever the result is. She might make a glancing comment during her Christmas Speech once the dust has settled.
The Ball tomorrow night will be interesting though - I wonder how the staff and workers at Balmoral who are Scottish will have voted and whether there will be more drinking and dancing whatever the result?!

The other thing that I don't like is the disenfranchisement of almost 1 million Scots.
British soldiers born and raised in Scotland but serving in England are not allowed a vote but an American citizen attending school or university in Scotland is allowed a vote.

While I find the age of voting a bit odd (do 16 year olds get to vote in everything or just this referendum?), the 50%+1 vote makes sense to me.

If they said that the result had to be 66%, and it came in at 53%, then clearly the majority of Scots are in favour of separation but are at that point literally being forced to stay in the union because their majority isn't big enough. Yes, it would suck for the very sizeable minority if the result comes down that close, but it's still respecting what most people in Scotland want.

Requiring the Yeses to have a 66% vote doesn't respect what the majority of Scotland wants. It's basically saying "unless you can get an overwhelming majority of Scots to vote for this we're going to ignore the results if they don't favour us". In that case, if the results come in at 53% for yes and 47% for no, the Nos have won the vote without actually winning it.

I disagree with you, Ish.

The 66 % is to ensure that a very sizeble majority of the population actually do want to go through with whatever but crucial issue they vote for. In this case independence.
It's also to ensure the interests of the loosing side. In this case say 49 % of the voters, who could otherwise become very frustrated since there will be no turning back.
Such frustrations need of course not become violent, but they could result in people leaving Scotland, or at the very least that the no voters in this case would start to vote for those parties and politicians who were most in favour of a no, thus changing the political landscape.
In any case such a large minority would be very vocal, and very troublesome to deal with politically and ultimately the yes side could end up with a political pyrrus victory on their hands, rather than a new refreshing start, which they clearly aim for.

Don't get me wrong, If the Scots want independence they should have it. Personally I would not accept a part of my own country gaining independence based on a 1 % majority. That would be unfair for the loosing side and politically polarizing.
After all, the yes-side can always try again, this time perhaps securing a much more substancial majority.
The no-side only get one chance this way.
In other words: if the yes-side can't win with a large majority, then the project isn't mature yet.

Cameron gave the SNP every concession it wanted, from the date of the referendum to the age of voting (16). Not only does the rest of the United Kingdom not have a say but it takes only 50 percent +1 of Scots to break up the union.

Not 'of Scots'. It is 50% of all whom are officially registered as a resident of Scotland (so also other nationalities), and have registered themselves as a voter, and who have turned up at the election.

The other thing that I don't like is the disenfranchisement of almost 1 million Scots.
British soldiers born and raised in Scotland but serving in England are not allowed a vote but an American citizen attending school or university in Scotland is allowed a vote.

Mr Cameron walked with open eyes into Salmond's trap, totally underestimating the whole circus. It was obvious from the very first second on that the thought of Scotland going independence was "utter fantasy" for Cameron and other Westminster politicians. They all agreed with the Referendum Act and all arrangements around. Again a proof of their tunnel vision.